Helicopter Governments: part two – Bill C-9

We’ve all heard of helicopter parents, hovering over their little ones to protect them from every scrape and fall. Can governments, sincere in their motive, overprotect their citizens? The Liberal government has introduced Bill C-2 (Strong Borders Act) and Bill C-9 (The Combatting Hate Act) as a solution to the social turmoil in our nation. But is their effort an overreaction to outside pressure, or a purposeful distraction from other internal issues they aren’t managing?

Cheryl Gallant, Conservative member for Algonquiin-Renfrew-Pembroke, shared a significant comeback on C-2 during an 8-hour debate accompanying the second reading with an almost empty House. She said, “Bill C-2 is a trojan horse. It promises security but delivers surveillance. It promises order but delivers control. And it’s not the kind of legislation that Canadians expect from a government that claims to respect the Charter.”

That bill has been split into two parts now.

Bill C-9, introduced on September 19, 2025, opened for debate in the House of Commons on September 24, 2025, to deal with hate-motivated crimes. It had been tabled earlier by Minister of Justice and Attorney General Sean Fraser. Hatred is defined, and four new offences are designated for the Criminal Code. The bill was meant to deal with issues of antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and racism. The House sent it back to the Justice Committee for more study on October 1^st.

One concern for Catholics and other Christian organizations is that the bill nowhere indicates that Christians, or their places of worship, are included in this. Phil Horan, the president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League, noted that “There was no mention of over 300 arsons or acts of vandalism to Christian churches since 2021, of which the majority were Catholic churches.” To him, it suggested that “the extensive losses to Christian church properties over the past four years appears to be of little interest to the federal government.”

However, spokesperson Kwame Bonsu, in a statement to the Catholic Register says that “Canada will not tolerate anyone being made to feel afraid because of who they are, how they worship or where they gather…The proposed Combatting Hate Act would amend the Criminal Code to better protect access to places of worship, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other places of worship, as well as schools, community centres and other specified places. If passed, this legislation would more clearly address and denounce hate-motivated crime and apply to everyone in Canada.”

The struggle for some Canadians is that C-9 could bring faster charges against those who threaten or obstruct people trying to access churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, schools, or cultural centres. While the intent seems to be safety for participants like students and worshippers, critics fear that the broad wording could impact vigils or pickets that may be loud, but are still peaceful, requiring self-censorship by advocacy groups.

The heart of the bill is the focus on hate. In this legislation, hate is “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification stronger than disdain or dislike.” The clarification considers that hatred isn’t designated “solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.”

Justice Dickson, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Keegstra in 1990, writes, “hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry, and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hated in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.”

This bill removes the requirement that the Attorney-General consent to charges being laid for hate propaganda offenses.

Criminal Court provisions would now include:

• Willful promotion of hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place, including swastikas or SS bolts, or the symbol of any designated terrorist entity.
• Intimidation of a person in order to impede them from access to places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for various activities. The focus is on the creation of fear through intimidation.
• Intentional obstruction or interference with a person’s access to places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group. If you are near the location to communicate or obtain information that access is considered acceptable.
• Any offense motivated by hatred (based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression) may be found guilty of a hate crime under the Criminal Code. Quebec MPs indicate that they will propose that one part be removed. This part says that “if, on good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument, an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion on a religious text.”

Ongoing parliamentary scrutiny will determine how far these bills go and with what safeguards. With the government repackaging parts of C-2, the privacy fight may shift to committee line-by-line review. On C-9, there will be questions about offence definitions, protest-speech protections, and police discretion.

Anais Bussieres McNicoll, Director of the Fundamental Freedoms programs at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), says “We must all work together to combat hatred and build a more inclusive, equal society.” She also says, “We must also remember that criminal law is not the solution to every social problem. As drafted, Bill C-9 risks criminalizing some forms of protected speech and peaceful protests – two cornerstones of a free and democratic society – around tens of thousands of community gathering spaces in Canada.”

Howard Sapers, CCLA Executive Director, says “People living in Canada are entitled to physical safety and have the right to worship safely. These are already protected by existing law…The majority of Bill C-9 does not address a gap in the law. Current offences such as mischief, intimidation, threats and harassment already give police the tools they need to protect public safety.”

The stakes will be high. Ottawa must protect the right of worship and gathering without fear. Rights groups will counter that the cure must not erode the freedoms it aims to protect. Protecting communities while preserving civil liberties will take all the skill of an expert needle-threader.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada posted the following on its website.

In the debate, the Bloc Québecois MPs have indicated they plan to ask for at least one amendment to Bill C-9. They have indicated they will propose the bill remove the good faith religious belief defence from the hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code.  If someone is found to have wilfully promoted hatred or antisemitism, there is a defence, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument, an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text.”  

The EFC is reviewing the bill’s provisions and possible amendments and will be making a submission on the bill to the parliamentary committee studying it.